I received a post card a few weeks ago saying I was part of some class action lawsuit and they provided a number for me to get my 50 cents. The lawyers according to the post card would be getting 300 million, the remaining was used to send out the post cards and phone number to take the calls to dispense the 50 cents.

RamboFrog:Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.

Not quite this bad, but yeah -- the way the system is set up, the person named on the lawsuit usually gets a big payday; the lawyers get a huge payday; the company gets immunity from further suit; and, the members of the class get a tiny percentage of what they're due.

Well, that's what you get for signing on to a class action suit. Who doesn't know that they're scams for enriching lawyers on both sides of the case? Morons who think a $1 check constitutes some kind of victory for them.

For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative? If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

stuhayes2010:As someone who just received $27 in a Farmers Insurance class action suit, I am getting a kick....

=============

I recently received $8.23 from American Express over an exchange rate class action. The "check" they sent me looked so unlike a real check the teller at my bank refused to deposit it until the manger OKed it.

Sometimes, lawyer fees are the only thing that enables (worthy) lawsuits in the first place - things like police brutality and civil rights suits under Section 1983. You can end up with things where the plaintiff gets $200 and the lawyer gets $8,000 in fees. It allows lawyers to afford to actually represent the poor and indigent and protect their rights, since not every lawyer is Louis Brandeis and can afford to take destitute clients all the time. And if the lawyer loses the case, no fees.

This isn't a comment on class action suits, just smaller claims against entities like local government and landlords.

Ajakk:For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative? If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

There's an entire court system dedicated to claims under $1000. Maybe they could, I dunno, use that?

I laugh every time I hear someone getting excited over being part of a Class Action lawsuit that is in the millions, because this exact thing happens all the time!

I remember when I was sent an email about a class action suit. I checked it out, it was legit, and all I had to do to join was add my name and address to a register for the law company. Having totally forgotten about it, about 8 months later I got a check for $2.32 as part of the settlement. The lawyers walked away with a couple hundred thousand each.

Most people think they're going to be rich because of this. They see the class action suit for 3 million and think they will get that 3 million. It's funny how they can be told it will be shared, but in their brain, it's their 3 million dollar settlement.

Google the flight attendants 'second hand smoke' lawsuit in Miami of several years ago.Lawyers got rich..........................$46,000,000 + expenses.Medical research fund did well....$300,000,000.00Flight attendants........................$0.00 + the right to sue again.

Ajakk:For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative? If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

It has nothing to do w/ the lawsuit, its the lawyer's payout that's the problem.

Ajakk:For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative? If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

Or the company has the financial incentive to continue and/or expand the improper conduct.

Ajakk:For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative? If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

I recommend bringing back lynching for the CEO of the company that messes up and hurts 10 million people it would fix a lot of issues very quick

/ also think the guillotine would be a good solution to campaign finance reforme you I've a bribe over 100.00 your head goes in the basket.

It sucks that the class action members paid all that money to their lawyers, risking a fortune, on the chance that they would win the suit. They definitely should have received a cut of the payout commensurate to the risk the took.

In his dissent, Judge R. Guy Cole took a more pragmatic approach."Although the relief offered to the unnamed class members may not be worth much, their claims appear to be worth even less. Nobody disputes that the class's claims in this case had little to no merit. In the absence of this settlement, class members would almost certainly have gotten nothing.

rumpelstiltskin:These lawyers took nothing and turned it into money. They really did do all the work, and since the plaintiffs didn't suffer any damages, why should the lawyers share even ten percent with them?

Because without them the lawyers would have no standing to file in the first place and then couldn't make any money at all? Just a guess as to why the plaintiffs haven't yet been ENTIRELY cut out of class action payouts.

Cold_Sassy:RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.

Yeah, anybody who hasn't figured that out by now is pretty clueless.

If you don't think you will be happy with a class action settlement; you could for go participation in the class action suit and simply do the tens of thousands of hours of research all by yourself, prepare the tens of thousands of pages of legal documents all by yourself and argue your case in front of the judge and jury all by yourself. That way you get to keep the $200 of restitution all by yourself instead of the lawyers taking 90%.

In defense of class actions suits, it's not about enriching the victim, it's about punishing the bad actor.

If a company knowingly screws over thousands (or even millions) of people for a small amount, they know those people won't sue over 50 bucks. Perhaps a tiny, tiny minority will, but in general they are protected from retribution by the high hurdle to suing a corporation and the low potential reward.

So, the company knows they can break the law or harm customers as a part of their business model - so long as the cheat/harm is kept small.

That's where the class action suit comes in handy. You get a large group of people who have been harmed, and you sue for the collective damage, not the individual damage. This can add up to "real money" in the eyes of corporations - and it scares them into behaving (or correcting their behavior).

Corps hate that. So there is now a full frontal push to eliminate or limit class action suits. Which is why you see a WSJ article decrying how terrible this settlement was (never mind that it forced the company to correct their "cost savings measure" that was causing thousands of babies diaper rash). Nope, just focus on the tiny "settlement" each plantiff got. (Ignore that without this suit, the company would have been free to continue abusing babies for profit).

Ajakk:For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative? If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

Total actual harm here 25 mil.

Instead of giving 20 mil to the lawyers and 5 mil to the actually harmed people, give 20 mil to the lawyers AND 25 mil to the harmed people. Don't like it? Don't screw people in the first place.

untaken_name:rumpelstiltskin: These lawyers took nothing and turned it into money. They really did do all the work, and since the plaintiffs didn't suffer any damages, why should the lawyers share even ten percent with them?

Because without them the lawyers would have no standing to file in the first place and then couldn't make any money at all? Just a guess as to why the plaintiffs haven't yet been ENTIRELY cut out of class action payouts.

ShadowKamui:Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative? If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

It has nothing to do w/ the lawsuit, its the lawyer's payout that's the problem.

That's why the Appeals Court is refusing to accept the settlement. They have a problem with the fees as well.

I'm all for people getting paid for the work they do, and that kind of legal bill isn't totally insane if it's a really complex case. (I don't think this is a complex case). For example, if the attorneys are billing $300/hr for services, that's 9,100 hours of work on this $2.7m bill. Which is about four and a half man-years of billable hours, figuring that an attorney is expected to bill 2,000 hours in a year. So we ask - how many lawyers were on the case and for how long? A firm might devote a total of ten lawyers to it, and you'd burn through that 9,100 billed hours in under six months of continuous work. While I doubt this took that amount of work, multi-year complex litigation could certainly occupy that amount of time.

untaken_name:There's an entire court system dedicated to claims under $1000. Maybe they could, I dunno, use that?

hrm. So you are harmed to the amount of $160 by a big ass company. You decide to sue them in small claims court. Let us assume, as you are on fark, that you make say, $20 an hour. Spending 8 hours of your time on it and you have pretty much wiped out any benefit - unless your hobby is filing lawsuits. Ifg it is, go for it. Otherwise, people tend to use small claims court only when they are really really pissed off and/or have way too much free time. I.e. the elderly and the loonies.

Class action lawsuits are bullshiat for the plaitiffs. The lawyers love them, make no mistake. They get paid no matter what. And they longer they drag it out, the more they get paid. In the end the plaintiffs end up with almost nothing.

The last two suits I got settlements from were like $50 or $60, when in each case, I was over $1000 out of pocket.

It's like, here in NJ, where a bunch of towns fined people illegally from traffic light cameras to the tune of about $140 each. Even though it was proved to be illegal. They got a settlement of $8.50. That's just great guys. Thanks for that.

Private_Citizen:That's where the class action suit comes in handy. You get a large group of people who have been harmed, and you sue for the collective damage, not the individual damage. This can add up to "real money" in the eyes of corporations - and it scares them into behaving (or correcting their behavior).

Corps hate that. So there is now a full frontal push to eliminate or limit class action suits. Which is why you see a WSJ article decrying how terrible this settlement was (never mind that it forced the company to correct their "cost savings measure" that was causing thousands of babies diaper rash). Nope, just focus on the tiny "settlement" each plantiff got. (Ignore that without this suit, the company would have been free to continue abusing babies for profit).

Additionally, only the bad actor pays for enforcement. If we had a federal agency have to look into every case of wrongdoing, everyone would need to pay for it in taxes. but in a class action, the lawyers bringing suit pay all the up-front enforcement costs. If they fail, or there is no wrongdoing, no tax burden. If they win, its the company that is doing wrong that pays for it.

Its fun to see when asked about class actions, most libertarians are actually corpratists rather than actual libertarians, as class actions should be a friggin libertarian wet dream.